The Impasse

[PeelSeel2]

I can feel the nerd rage within you. Now let it out!! Use it to strike your enemies down, then your transformation to the dark nerd will be complete! Together, you and I will rule!

 

[Nymrohd]

This has nothing to do with WotC or heck even D&D for that matter. What you call "blindly defending" is a rather common mentality that can be generally accepted as irrational and will come up in any form of argument were one side is somehow "official" or "sanctioned". It is about as rational a process as calling for nerfs on the WoW forums and threatening to sue Blizzard . . .

What I mean is, this discussion is pointless. This type of mentality is inherently resilient; you might have a small chance to reverse it with actual contact when you can stress some leverage but in the interwebs you are better off banging your head to the wall. The best you can do imo is to learn to actually tell the difference between such "blind defending" and logical argumentation and to avoid generalizing. It is a two sided coin. (And please, we do not need yet another thread that is thinly veiled version of an edition war).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'd say anyone who simply defended each new rule from WotC, even if it changed the old rule he liked, is a blind defender.

In short: Blind defenders are those who change their opinions and preferences (or at least their stated ones) whenever WotC changes something.

That works as a definition to me.

So, what might motivate this people?

And are they common, or do people just attribute others as "blind defender", without noticing that the opinions are actually a little more complex?

 

[Fenes]

That works as a definition to me.

So, what might motivate this people?

The age-old (often subconscious, maybe genetic) wish to "follow the leader". You see it all around us - from fashion trends driven by stars to religious and political figures who can do no wrong in the eyes of their followers.
There's also the "group effect" you often see in families - you may think your father is a stubborn old fool, but you'll not accept an "outsider" call him that, and defend him.
Then, once something you like gets critiqued by someone you feel not close to - like a member of your "group" - it's hard not to slip into "full defense" mode.
And then the "he started it" effect comes up - people oppose criticsm because it's voiced by someone who fought them in the past, and they want to strike back. Bloodfeuds in olden times, internet grudges today.
I'd say humans are naturally driven to blindly defend things, and it takes work to remain objective and impartial towards something one likes, seeing their faults as well as their qualities, when others attack it.

And are they common, or do people just attribute others as "blind defender", without noticing that the opinions are actually a little more complex?

Very common.

 

[Nymrohd]

That works as a definition to me.

So, what might motivate this people?

And are they common, or do people just attribute others as "blind defender", without noticing that the opinions are actually a little more complex?

I'd say they are not so common here, though certainly common elsewhere. Certainly there will be people who use the "blind defender" card to ostensibly disqualify someone's arguments (call them "blind opposers"?). Doesn't change the fact that this behaviour exists. As for motivation, there is a sense of security in advocating what is sanctioned and official, one might be prompted to reactively defend anything that is attacked by people he percieves as separatists because he is predisposed to conservative thinking. It is a common pattern we are all familiar with, but maybe we are not apt or willing to identify it within our shared community. I am sure anyone with a degree in psychology or sociology can give you exact terms.

 

[Shazman]

I've supported WotC on these forums but I resent any implication that I "blindly" agree with anything. When I see *what I consider to be* irrational motives and hatred lobbed in their direction, I occasionally feel strongly enough to stand up and shout about it. I do this partly because I loathe the culture of corporate demonisation that has sprung up around us all over the last few decades, and which by its very nature the internet has exploded.

The thread which spawned this fork is a good example. WotC took what I see as a totally reasonable action, and you get people comparing them to the insanity that was TSR in its darkest days. Ludicrous.

I'm a long-time WoW player and I used to do the same on their official forums, but I quickly gave up because the ratio of unadulterated (and unmoderated) immaturity which, yes, did occasionally threaten to raise a law suit because a class as described on the box had been changed in subsequent patches, was so high as to simply not be worth the effort of fighting.

If greedy corporations that treat employees as numbers and customers as mindless sheep don't deserve to be demonized, then I guess no one does. These corporations you are defending are often run by people who would lay employees off and ruin thier families financial futures so they can get bigger bonuses. I'm sorry but I'm not going to feel sorry for people who are so greedy they will ruin other people's lives to fatten their already huge bottom line. I suppose you want us to feel sorry for Bernie Maedoff (however it's spelled) and Kenneth Lay as well. Give me a break.

 

[Fenes]

And of course, many see their own attacks as defense of the thing they like, which they feel was attacked first.

 

[Nymrohd]

If greedy corporations that treat employees as numbers and customers as mindless sheep don't deserve to be demonized, then I guess no one does. These corporations you are defending are often run by people who would lay employees off and ruin thier families financial futures so they can get bigger bonuses. I'm sorry but I'm not going to feel sorry for people who are so greedy they will ruin other people's lives to fatten their already huge bottom line. I suppose you want us to feel sorry for Bernie Maedoff (however it's spelled) and Kenneth Lay as well. Give me a break.

I'm confused. Is the bottomline of the D&D department of WotC that big? I am under the impression that their market is hardly growing. And I find the greedy corporations pitch to be a dangerous generalization. Also nothing deserves to be demonized; to do so is to abandon logic and deal with something impulsively and emotionally.

 

[FourthBear]

If greedy corporations that treat employees as numbers and customers as mindless sheep don't deserve to be demonized, then I guess no one does.

Even if your description of WotC were correct (I do not believe it is), WotC is simply a game company. That's it. It doesn't produce deadly weapons, unsafe vehicles or toxic foodstuffs. I think terrorist organizations, tyrannical governments, fraudulent financial institutions, abusive religious cults and criminal groups all over the world deserve demonization far, far more than a game company that makes business decisions you disagree with. Let's get some perspective, here.

 

[LostSoul]

I'd say anyone who simply defended each new rule from WotC, even if it changed the old rule he liked, is a blind defender.

In short: Blind defenders are those who change their opinions and preferences (or at least their stated ones) whenever WotC changes something.

As far as skill challenges go, I was fine with them before (I thought the DCs were too high, but no big deal, PCs fail a lot; and the strangeness with the complexity I didn't really care about), but I also like them now. I like them better now because I'd rather see the PCs succeed more often than not.

So am I a blind defender because I liked both versions of the rules?

(I think skill challenges still have problems - procedural problems - but I don't think they were ever in the math.)